The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-12-06

BILE to every one. that the disorder pau
perish and crime prevalent in the country
are in large measure directly traccahlc to
this evil. II, therefore, u state deems the
absolute prohibition of tho manufacture
and sale within her limits of intoxicating
Liquors for other than medical, scientific
and manufacturing purposes To be neccs-
sary 10 the peace and security vi society,
the courts cannot without usurping
legislative functions, override the viii OF
the people rs thus expressed by their
chosen representatives. IL Is n iunda-
mental principle in our institutions, indis-
pensahle 10 the prcservatorf OF public llb-
erty, that one OF the separate departments
of government shall not usurp powers
committed 10y the constitution to another
department. And so II, in the judgment of
the Legislature, the manufacture OF intoNl-
eating liquors for the makers own use rs
beverage would tend 10 cripple, ii not to
defeat, her efforts TO guard the community
against tho evils attending the excessive
use Of such liquors, II is not Tor the courts,
upon their views us TO what Is best and
safest for the community, 10 disregard the
legislative determination OF that Qucs-
| ton. 80 far from such rcgu-
lation being inappropriate to the
general end sought 20 he
accomplished, il is easy 10 be seen that the
entire scheme OF prohibition, ~ embodied
in the constitution and laws OF Kansas
might fail ii the right Of each citizen 10
manufacture intoxicating liquors for his
own use m u beverage were recognized.
Such right does not inhcrc in citizenship.
| Nor can II bc said that the government in
tcrcps with or impairs anyono's constitu-
| tionnl rights Of liberty or OF property when
| IL determines that the manufacture and
sale of Intoxicating drinks, for general or
individual use as beverage, is or may be-
come hurtlul 10 society aud To- every mem
Der Of il, aud is therefore business in
which no one can lawfully engage.
"This conclusion is unavoidable, unless
the fourteenth amendment OF the constitu-
ton takes from the States OF the Union
those powers Of police that were reserved
at the time the original constitution was
adopted. But this court has declared upon
full consideration in Barbour vs.. Conncl-
| ~, ll3 United States, 81, that the four
tecnth amendment had no such effect.
| With reference To the assertion that the
prohibition OF the manufacture and sale
Of liquor deprivcs liquor-dculCrs of their
property without due process Of law, the
court mys that all property under our form
Of government Is subject Ia the obligation
that IL shall not be- used soas toinjuriously
affect the rights Of the community and
thereby become nuisance. The state ol
Kansas had a right 10 prohibit the liquor
traffic. IL did not thereby take away tile
property OF the brewers. II simply ahltcd
a nuisance. The property is not taken
away from It's owncr; they are only pro.
hibitcd from using II for a spcciiicpurposc,
which the Legislature declared 10 be in
furious 10 the community.
"For the reasons stated, says Justice
Harlan, Eve are oi opinion that Muglcr,
the plaintiff in error, has not been denied
by the judgments Of the supreme court Of
Kansas any right, privilege or immunity
secured To him by the constitution NJ the
United States, aud It's judgment In each
ease il accordingly affirmed We arr also
OF opinion that the Circuit court oi the
| United STATES cured In Msmis.ng the hll
bfthU State in her suit against Licbild und
IIngtlin The decree In that ease is rc
ycr,cd and the cause rcmandcd, with al
rcctions To enter decree granting Ia the
State such relief NJ tho act oi March Z,
1885, authorizes"
Justice Field concurrd in the opinion
rs IL related 10 the two eases in which the
State oi Kansas was defendant, hut dis
scented ~ 10 the case Of the state oi Kansas
". Icibold. lie agrccd, hr said, To ~ much
OF the opinion ~ su-lnins the Vllidityoi the
act of Kansas prohibiting the sale oi IN.
tpXicants, which are manufacture IN the
State after the passage NJ the net. lie was
not prepared, however, IA sly chat the
prohibition Of the manufacture Ut such
liquors, II entered for expectation, can
be- sustained, nor that the State can forbid
the sale, under proper regulations, Tor the
protection al health and morals IT the
people Of amy article which Congress may
authorize o. b. imported. lie WIS not
ready a. admit that New York ~ any
other coast State can thus defeat an ari
Of Cungrrss. Neither could lac con.
cur In the validity oi the thirteenth section
OF the prohibition net 81 Kansas because
hc believed IL authorized the destruction
~ property without due process IT law.
lie could not see upon what prn.
riplc the legislature, after closing the
brwcry, can orlcr the destruction OF
liuuur which il admits may BE-
valuable ipr medicinal or mechanical pur.
posses. Nor could hc see why Ito prpicc.
ton II the morals oi the state required
the destruction oi bottles aud other ulcn.
sis, aiioraho liquor had been cmplicd
from them.